In blogs and internet discussion groups, Civil War buffs and scholars debate ad nauseam whether African Americans fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War. The topic generates enormous interest, but with little resolution despite the fact that reliable historical evidence strongly indicates that the Confederate government did not formally accept black men into armed service until the very eve of its defeat and that no official black Confederate unit ever saw combat. Indeed, the “debate” (if it can be called that since people tend to talk more past each other than to each other) over the existence of so-called black Confederates says more about Civil War memory in the early 21st century and the political agendas behind it than what actually occurred in the 1860s.

Part of the problem is that during the Civil War itself confusion existed early on about what roles African Americans had in both the Union and Confederate forces. Accounts and rumors of black Confederate soldiers popped up in the North in the first months of the war. For example, as Brooks Simpson has pointed out in his blog, Crossroads, neo-Confederates make much of a passage from Frederick Douglass in the September 1861 issue of his publication, Douglass’ Monthly. In the key part, Douglass wrote:

Brooks Simpson asks some excellent questions about the passage dealing with what Douglass could have known personally about how African Americans were serving in the Confederate army (not much since he never personally observed the Confederate army during this period) and what was his agenda at the time (Douglass wanted black men to be able to enlist formally in the Union army, so armed service of African Americans in the Confederate army would have been a potent fact in favor of his argument). The logical implication is that Frederick Douglass evidently was either mistaken about armed black service for the Confederacy or was being disingenuous to advance his argument in favor of black enlistment in the Union army.

Or maybe he read the Congressional Globe, the Congressional Record of its day, recording and reporting on the proceedings of the U.S. Congress. In the Congressional Globe in late July 1861 members of Congress from both parties claimed to have seen armed black men in both northern and southern armies. Some having personally observed them with the Union army in Washington, D.C., after their arrival for the special congressional session that started on July 4, 1861. Others having personally observed armed African Americans with both the Union and Confederate forces at the Battle of Bull Run/Manassas on July 21, 1861, fought close enough to the capital that many Washingtonians went to see the action, including members of Congress (one was even captured by Confederate forces).

To judge from the fact that by the end of 1861 that Burnett accepted a commission in the Confederate army and was expelled from the U.S. Congress, it is not surprising that House Republicans objected repeatedly to the Kentuckian being allowed to address the House on his resolution. Burnett apparently saw among his roles at the special session defending the property of rebel slaveholders, especially as Congress was then considering a bill to legalize and formalize confiscating property being used in support of the rebellion. Yet Burnett’s interactions with his fellow members of the U.S. House on his proposed resolution also produces intriguing statements about the status of African Americans in both the Union and Confederate forces, and the developing debate about whether to recruit black men formally for armed military service in the Union army.

Charles A. Wycliffe, upset that his resolution on Indians had been hijacked to investigate blacks in the army, as a Unionist also did not like Burnett was piggy backing on it uninvited to defend the property rights of rebels. He stated:

So while this U.S. House debate in late July 1861 does not substantiate that there were black soldiers in either the Union or Confederate forces at that early moment of the Civil War, it is apparent from the debate above that some servants and other African Americans attached to both armies were armed. This did not make them soldiers officially, but it does make murkier the line dividing soldiers and civilians attached to the armies in the Civil War.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About Donald R. Shaffer

Donald R. Shaffer is the author of _After the Glory: The Struggles of Black Civil War Veterans_ (Kansas, 2004), which won the Peter Seaborg Award for Civil War Scholarship in 2005. More recently he published (with Elizabeth Regosin), _Voices of Emancipation: Understanding Slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction through the U.S. Pension Bureau Files_ (2008). Dr. Shaffer teaches online exclusively (i.e., a virtual professor). He lives in Arizona and can be contacted at donald_shaffer@yahoo.com

8 Responses to Were There Black Soldiers in July 1861?

Actually, the post in question (including the comments discussion) leaves open the notion that Douglass was quoting sources he’d come across:

“Only if we want to concede that Douglass was simply passing on second-hand reports would his whereabouts become irrelevant (although his sources of information would then become important). That would mean that citing Frederick Douglass as a witness would be bad history.”

That Douglass was simply passing along what he had heard is different than saying that Douglass witnessed something himself. We then have to turn to the reports to find out what was going on, and ask the same question of the congressmen who participated in the debate you describe: are they reporting what they saw, or what they heard?

Hi Brooks–an excellent question. I think it was a bit of both. Burnett definitely indicates he saw personally armed African Americans in federal uniform. My guess is that they were servants who had acquired part or the whole of a federal uniform to replace whatever they were wearing when they escaped their plantations. Many slaves came into Union army camps in rags. Since army uniforms were the only clothing readily available that is what they were given to wear. As to the arms, they might have acquired them in camp or possibly come with them when they escaped. Some slaves had assess to firearms or could have possibly stolen them from their owners or other whites before or during their escape. Burnett also could be exaggerating since he had an agenda he was pushing–who knows?

As to the other congressional evidence, it is not as clear whether it was a personal observation or not. Enough congressman were at Bull Run/Manassas that some may seen personally what they mentioned or they had talked to people who had been there. In any case, their evidence is much more direct than Frederick Douglass. I just hope neo-Confederates will not misuse this congressional evidence the way they have misused Douglass. We shall see.

“So while this U.S. House debate in late July 1861 does not substantiate that there were black soldiers in either the Union or Confederate forces at that early moment of the Civil War, it is apparent from the debate above that some servants and other African Americans attached to both armies were armed. This did not make them soldiers officially, but it does make murkier the line dividing soldiers and civilians attached to the armies in the Civil War.”

Actually, I think it speaks to the murkiness of the emerging debate over the federal response to slaves coming within Union lines, the role blacks, Northern and Southern, would play in the war, and how to understand, and respond to, the relationship between Southern slavery and a clear war aim focusing on preserving the Union and rejecting secession. All of this would take a couple of years to work out.

Hi Marc. Thanks for your contribution. But I’d still like to find if some African Americans with the armies in July 1861 really had firearms and why? I seriously doubt if any of them were the mythical “black Confederates” but it is interesting the members of Congress wanted to investigate the matter. I’ll have to look into finding Simon Cameron’s correspondence from this period. I’m really curious how he responded to this resolution.